Isn't taxing rich people communism or socialism or whatever the scare-tactic is?

A common argument that is used by undergrad kids getting into politics (and subsequently knowing nothing about politics) is that "rich people" should be taxed more because… something. I forget what the actual argument is.

But if people want the wealthier to give more back to the community, isn't that essentially the whole idea of… sharing the wealth around or some such?

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

DroidPhysX

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

DroidPhysX

The rich are already taxed heavily and some of them actually do give back to the community. Don't mistake the rich as nothing but a bunch of crooked lawyers and celebrities. Most are actually successful buissness owners or people who are successful in their careers.

What I don't get, is the logic that taxing the rich more and more. There is nothing wrong with people getting rich, especially if they do well in their careers. It should be encouraged, not taxed upon.

The problem I have with the wealthy is that they are absurdly rich disgustingly rich, there is something wrong when a small percentage of people control the majority of wealth.

Erm, taxing people is taxing people. Taxing the rich is not in itself socialism or communism. It can be an indication of socialist policy (not always), but I've never seen someone with a straight face conflate high taxation and communism or socialism. Hell, progressive taxation exists as a wholly liberal idea (not modern liberalism.)

In regards to your post, there's a lot of justification for and against higher taxation on the rich, there's a plethora of arguments on both sides of the coin. Also, taxing the wealthy highly may be done to increase government revenue in war or something, not always for the purpose of "share the wealth around".

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

leviathan91

The rich are already taxed heavily and some of them actually do give back to the community. Don't mistake the rich as nothing but a bunch of crooked lawyers and celebrities. Most are actually successful buissness owners or people who are successful in their careers.

What I don't get, is the logic that taxing the rich more and more. There is nothing wrong with people getting rich, especially if they do well in their careers. It should be encouraged, not taxed upon.

Getting rich is its own incentive, and a reasonable tax increase isn't going to deter it. Would you rather make $10 million at a 50% tax rate or $50,000 at a 20% tax rate (numbers are just pulled out of my ass I don't know the exact tax rates)?

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

DroidPhysX

I know, damn them for not giving back what with starting companies and providing jobs and benefits. Screw the man.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

QuistisTrepe_

I know, damn them for not giving back what with starting companies and providing jobs and benefits. Screw the man.

Me thinks you're far right conservative

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

DroidPhysX

I know, damn them for not giving back what with starting companies and providing jobs and benefits. Screw the man.

Me thinks you're far right conservative

What if he is? The rich are the ones who create jobs.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

I know, damn them for not giving back what with starting companies and providing jobs and benefits. Screw the man.

TaCoDuDe

Me thinks you're far right conservative

What if he is? The rich are the ones who create jobs.

Ironically the rich are the ones who destroy jobs. (See recession of 2008-present)

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Me thinks you're far right conservative

DroidPhysX

What if he is? The rich are the ones who create jobs.

Ironically the rich are the ones who destroy jobs. (See recession of 2008-present)

There were many causes to the recession. The rich aren't one of them.

[QUOTE="TaCoDuDe"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Me thinks you're far right conservative

DroidPhysX

What if he is? The rich are the ones who create jobs.

Ironically the rich are the ones who destroy jobs. (See recession of 2008-present)

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

needled24-7

Ironically the rich are the ones who destroy jobs. (See recession of 2008-present)

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

DroidPhysX

I know, damn them for not giving back what with starting companies and providing jobs and benefits. Screw the man.

Me thinks you're far right conservative

It's sure tough to argue with that kind of logic. Because there can only be two different viewpoints, right?:roll:

EDIT: I'm still chuckling to myself that anyone would associate me with conservatives.

Why should those who can give more not do so?

It's a logic fail.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

QuistisTrepe_

I know, damn them for not giving back what with starting companies and providing jobs and benefits. Screw the man.

Do you really think all rich people do that or even do that out of the goodness of their heart?

Why should those who can give more not do so?

It's a logic fail.

Pixel-Pirate

Because most people would call it looting.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

chessmaster1989

The rich are already taxed heavily and some of them actually do give back to the community. Don't mistake the rich as nothing but a bunch of crooked lawyers and celebrities. Most are actually successful buissness owners or people who are successful in their careers.

What I don't get, is the logic that taxing the rich more and more. There is nothing wrong with people getting rich, especially if they do well in their careers. It should be encouraged, not taxed upon.

Getting rich is its own incentive, and a reasonable tax increase isn't going to deter it. Would you rather make $10 million at a 50% tax rate or $50,000 at a 20% tax rate (numbers are just pulled out of my ass I don't know the exact tax rates)?

I actually looked it up. The tax rates are surprisingly lower. It's not the progressive tax, it's just that some people still advocate higher taxes for those making over $250,000.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Why should those who can give more not do so?

It's a logic fail.

QuistisTrepe_

Because most people would call it looting.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Thats the thing. The rich DONT give back to the community. Trickle down theory is full of fail.

Pixel-Pirate

I know, damn them for not giving back what with starting companies and providing jobs and benefits. Screw the man.

Do you really think all rich people do that or even do that out of the goodness of their heart?

Do you believe it is any concern of yours what people do with their money?

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Why should those who can give more not do so?

It's a logic fail.

T_P_O

Because most people would call it looting.

The concept of taking more from certain people because of some unspecified claim that it is their duty to share more? Taxing is too honorable of a word, hence not properly identifying it.

Getting rich is its own incentive, and a reasonable tax increase isn't going to deter it. Would you rather make $10 million at a 50% tax rate or $50,000 at a 20% tax rate (numbers are just pulled out of my ass I don't know the exact tax rates)?chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Getting rich is its own incentive, and a reasonable tax increase isn't going to deter it. Would you rather make $10 million at a 50% tax rate or $50,000 at a 20% tax rate (numbers are just pulled out of my ass I don't know the exact tax rates)?smc91352

That's a pretty steep tax increase system I've created there. :o

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Because most people would call it looting.

QuistisTrepe_

The concept of taking more from certain people because of some unspecified claim that it is their duty to share more? Taxing is too honorable of a word, hence not properly identifying it.

I don't understand where all the entitlement comes from.

Why is it anybody's concern what I do with my money? Or what a rich person does with it?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

I know, damn them for not giving back what with starting companies and providing jobs and benefits. Screw the man.

QuistisTrepe_

Do you really think all rich people do that or even do that out of the goodness of their heart?

Do you believe it is any concern of yours what people do with their money?

Yes, I do. If they don't want to pay any taxes, they can not live in the country. It isn't "looting" or "stealing". It is taxing and has existed for a very long time, well before the ideas of left and right. A country, society, and institution cannot be built on hopeful goodwill from others. If we do not have a consistent flow of money to pay for things like military, roads, schools, police, then how do we pay for them?

The point is the rich aren't sharing like they're supposed to. The theory sucks.rcignoni

And how exactly are the rich "supposed" to share? We already have the 16th Amendment, what else would satisfy you?

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] No, most people would call it taxing. Hence, properly identifying it.T_P_O

The concept of taking more from certain people because of some unspecified claim that it is their duty to share more? Taxing is too honorable of a word, hence not properly identifying it.

It becomes an inherent negative when the burden is drastically shifted on a minority based on the concept that it is someone's duty to pay for all those who feel that that they shouldn't share in the burden with some demagoguery thrown in for good measure. Half of America doesn't even pay income tax.

The top 10% of earners in America account for 3/4 of all the tax revenues in America. And to think there are those out there who think that's not even enough. Amazing.

The top 10% of earners in America account for 3/4 of all the tax revenues in America. And to think there are those out there who think that's not even enough. Amazing.QuistisTrepe_

So then why do we have taxes?

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

The concept of taking more from certain people because of some unspecified claim that it is their duty to share more? Taxing is too honorable of a word, hence not properly identifying it.

QuistisTrepe_

It becomes an inherent negative when the burden is drastically shifted on a minority based on the concept that it is someone's duty to pay for all those who feel that that they shouldn't share in the burden with some demagoguery thrown in for good measure. Half of America doesn't even pay income tax.

The top 10% of earners in America account for 3/4 of all the tax revenues in America. And to think there are those out there who think that's not even enough. Amazing.

A second ago we were not arguing "They're taxed too much" but that they should not be taxed any more than a guy who makes 5k a year.

When did the conversation change?

It is only logical those who can bare a heavier burden should be if someone must. Would you have a disabled man carry that 400 pound box over there or the very fit and capable man?

Taxation isn't socialism or communism. Socialism is government taking over a majority of industry (to put things very very simply). Every country except for maybe Somalia has some form of taxation.

Taxation isn't "punishing" or detering people from being rich. If you are successful and make lots of money, you're going to be successful and make lots of money regardless of tax rate. Rich people should be taxed more because they benefit the most from the capitalist system and they have the most interest in keeping it afloat. They benefit the most from an orderly and productive society, and can enjoy the various products of society to a larger degree. Rich people need poor people, so they best keep the poor people at least semi happy (through a welfare state supported by taxes).

If there was ever a socialist revolution, capitalists would be to blame, not the proletariat.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]The top 10% of earners in America account for 3/4 of all the tax revenues in America. And to think there are those out there who think that's not even enough. Amazing.smc91352

We just print more money to pay for everything, DONT YOU KNOW. Duhhhhhhh:P

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

The concept of taking more from certain people because of some unspecified claim that it is their duty to share more? Taxing is too honorable of a word, hence not properly identifying it.

QuistisTrepe_

It becomes and inherent negative when the burden is drastically shifted on a minority based on the concept that it is someone's duty to pay for all those who feel that that they shouldn't share in the burden. Half of America doesn't even pay income tax.

The top 10% of earners in America account for 3/4 of all the tax revenues in America. And to think there are those out there who think that's not even enough. Amazing.

Well, from my point of view, it becomes negative to those who want to make that judgement. You'd see plenty of people supporting progressive tax, saying that lower taxation on the rich is itself, inherently negative. Doesn't make it so, either way. It's a subjective analysis and evaluation it isn't ground in any sort of objectivity. This is ethics, more than anything. I'd be able to point out that it's negative to shift the taxation burden onto people who may not be able to afford it and then not be able to live in comfort, as what would've happened in this country as a result of Thatcher's flat taxation policy (probably.) This is pretty much pure political-philosophical taste.

Of course, if we're going to clash over where ethics can be objective (not against this, utilitarianism and whatnot) and whatever, let's save that for another thread. I don't want to derail this and come across as unduly hostile.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] Taxing is the correct word. I refuse to give in to this trend of labelling something falsely to make it seem inherently negative. Maybe if it was suggested that one stole from the rich, then shared it around, it would be theft or extortion.markop2003

It is impossible to measure what one personally chosts the government. Well, maybe it would be completely impossible, but it's sure as hell not feasable. How do you mean by "sharded equally"? Do you mean like everyone pays the same dollar amount? The same percentage? What?

Taxation isn't socialism or communism. Socialism is government taking over a majority of industry (to put things very very simply). Every country except for maybe Somalia has some form of taxation.

Taxation isn't "punishing" or detering people from being rich.

_BlueDuck_

Well, the term is "tax penalty," just sayin'.;)

I don't see why we don't just go off of consumption taxes. The tax burden would be efficiently distributed and the tax revenues would likely be even greater for the government.

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Taxation isn't socialism or communism. Socialism is government taking over a majority of industry (to put things very very simply). Every country except for maybe Somalia has some form of taxation.

Taxation isn't "punishing" or detering people from being rich.

QuistisTrepe_

Well, the term is "tax penalty," just sayin'.;)

I don't see why we don't just go off of consumption taxes. The tax burden would be efficiently distributed and the tax revenues would likely be even greater for the government.

I've often wondered if perhaps the income tax shouldn't be abolished completely and something like a national sales tax created in it's place.

[QUOTE="rcignoni"]The point is the rich aren't sharing like they're supposed to. The theory sucks.QuistisTrepe_

And how exactly are the rich "supposed" to share? We already have the 16th Amendment, what else would satisfy you?

I'm not sure how pragmatic it is for society to tax the rich, but to those who are against it for moral reasons: almost all of us are looking after our own interests. The poor often adapt to what the rich want; I don't see why it is morally wrong for the rich to adapt to what the poor want (provided if this is what the majority of a society wants).

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] The concept of taxing more from a certain demographic of people out of a perceived moral obligation is not looting. Looting is indiscriminate anyway, so I dunno why you'd say such a thing and then say from "certain people". Taxing is the correct word. I refuse to give in to this trend of labelling something falsely to make it seem inherently negative. Maybe if it was suggested that one stole from the rich, then shared it around, it would be theft or extortion.Pixel-Pirate

It becomes an inherent negative when the burden is drastically shifted on a minority based on the concept that it is someone's duty to pay for all those who feel that that they shouldn't share in the burden with some demagoguery thrown in for good measure. Half of America doesn't even pay income tax.

The top 10% of earners in America account for 3/4 of all the tax revenues in America. And to think there are those out there who think that's not even enough. Amazing.

A second ago we were not arguing "They're taxed too much" but that they should not be taxed any more than a guy who makes 5k a year.

When did the conversation change?

It is only logical those who can bare a heavier burden should be if someone must. Would you have a disabled man carry that 400 pound box over there or the very fit and capable man?

Yup, I dont see any problem with the people with the majority of wealth paying the majority of taxes. Hell the top 1% possesses over double the wealth of the bottom 80%

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] The concept of taxing more from a certain demographic of people out of a perceived moral obligation is not looting. Looting is indiscriminate anyway, so I dunno why you'd say such a thing and then say from "certain people". Taxing is the correct word. I refuse to give in to this trend of labelling something falsely to make it seem inherently negative. Maybe if it was suggested that one stole from the rich, then shared it around, it would be theft or extortion.Pixel-Pirate

It becomes an inherent negative when the burden is drastically shifted on a minority based on the concept that it is someone's duty to pay for all those who feel that that they shouldn't share in the burden with some demagoguery thrown in for good measure. Half of America doesn't even pay income tax.

The top 10% of earners in America account for 3/4 of all the tax revenues in America. And to think there are those out there who think that's not even enough. Amazing.

A second ago we were not arguing "They're taxed too much" but that they should not be taxed any more than a guy who makes 5k a year.

When did the conversation change?

I'm genuinely at a loss here. I have no idea what you're trying to say.:?